The Lexicon of Compassion
Introduction: Definitions of Empathy and Compassion
What is empathy? A general dictionary would tell you that empathy is ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’. But the reality is more complicated because there are competing definitions of what empathy means and what kinds of empathy are desirable.
As Paul Bloom has remarked, ‘empathy’ is frequently used in a very broad sense:
“Some people use empathy as referring to everything good, as a synonym for morality and kindness and compassion. And many of the pleas that people make for more empathy just express the view that it would be better if we were nicer to one another. […] Others think about empathy as the act of understanding other people, getting inside their heads and figuring out what they are thinking.”
(Bloom, Paul (2016) Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, p. 3)
If we want to discuss the importance of empathy in education, society or politics, it is helpful to define what we are actually talking about to avoid misunderstanding and to contribute to making such debates more productive.
One important distinction that some psychologists make is between ‘cognitive empathy’ and ‘emotional empathy’ or between ‘understanding’ and ‘feeling’. Understanding the feelings of another person with rationally is not the same as experiencing or mirroring these feelings in your own body.
Moreover, to understand or feel another person’s emotions does not necessarily lead to action that could help the other person. This is why some authors argue that empathy needs to be connected to ‘kindness’ or ‘compassion’ in order to be meaningful. The question of empathy is therefore often related to discussions of ethics and values. One of the central concerns in such discussions is who should be the target of empathy or compassion: those who are close to us, all people regardless of race or nationality or even all living beings?
This article introduces different definitions of empathy and related concepts, such as compassion, in order to help advance a more nuanced understanding of these traits and skills. It is not necessary that you agree with these definitions, but it is helpful to know about them when you develop your own position on any of the matters discussed.
What is the difference between cognitive and emotional empathy?
- Cognitive empathy or ‘emotion recognition’ is the capacity to recognize another person’s feelings but does not involve experiencing those feelings oneself. Sources of cognitive understanding of another person’s feelings include the ability to read body language (such as facial expressions and voice tone), general intelligence, the ability to take different perspectives as well as one’s own past experience.
- Emotional empathy or ‘affective empathy’ or ‘identical emotional resonance’ is the capacity to experience the same feelings that the other person is experiencing. It is the mirroring of the other person’s feelings in one’s own body. That does not mean that the strength of the emotions experienced by the person who empathizes is necessarily the same as that of the person who is the target of empathy.
We may recognize that a person is sad without feeling sad ourselves. This could be described as cognitive empathy. In emotional empathy, we not only recognize that the other person is sad, but we feel sad ourselves. Understanding the feelings of another person rationally is not the same as experiencing or mirroring these feelings in your own body.
According to Paul Bloom (in his 2016 book Against Empathy), there is at least some consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that cognitive and emotional empathy are indeed different. One type of evidence he cites are neuroscientific experiments that have led to a theory of two systems (understanding and feeling) which can be active at once but occupy different parts of the brain. That is to say, we can have cognitive and emotional empathy at the same time, but they are not the same and it is certainly possible to have cognitive empathy without emotional empathy.
Both cognitive and emotional empathy have shortcomings, the most important of which is perhaps that they do not necessarily move us to act in the interest of the person we empathize with. For example, it is possible to have cognitive empathy with a person but be too detached to care. Or worse, cognitive empathy can be used to manipulate or even torture people more effectively. Emotional empathy makes it harder to remain detached, but it does not necessarily motivate us to act in the other person’s interest. One response to feeling the pain of another can be to turn away, in order to avoid being affected by the other person’s emotions. There are also situations when the other person does not actually want us to exhibit emotional empathy, such as when mirroring their anxiety would increase their anxiety even further.
When does empathy lead to positive action?
Because empathy, whether cognitive or emotional, does not necessarily lead to action,
some authors argue that empathy needs to be connected to ‘kindness’ or ‘compassion’ in order to be meaningful.
Let us start by looking at the broadest possible definitions of these terms, using the explanations given in the New Oxford American Dictionary installed on every Mac computer as an example.
- Kindness is ‘the quality of being friendly, generous and compassionate’.
- Compassion is ‘a concern for the suffering of others’.
Already at this point, we can note two important differences between kindness / compassion and cognitive / emotional empathy as introduced above:
- The definitions of cognitive and emotional empathy introduced above do not include the attributes of ‘concern’ or ‘friendliness’ that are at the core of kindness and compassion. This is why empathy, in this definition, would not be sufficient to inspire positive action.
- While empathy also includes recognizing or resonating with emotions such as joy, compassion is squarely concerned with ‘suffering’. In that sense, the definition of compassion is narrower than that of empathy.
Frequently, proponents of compassion tend to argue that compassion is an active concern that makes it almost impossible for the person who has compassion not to act. In that sense, the definition of compassion would be extended to mean: ‘a concern for the suffering of others and the resulting action to relieve or avoid that suffering’.
One example would be Paul Ekman’s advocacy of what he initially called ‘compassionate empathy’ to distinguish it from cognitive and emotional empathy. (He later refined his definition of compassion and argued for the need for global compassion – see here).
- Compassionate empathy goes beyond cognitive and emotional empathy by spontaneously moving us to help, if needed. For Ekman, it is a skill that is based on the understanding that we are all connected.
- Constructive anger is anger as a reaction to injustice. It is constructive because it moves us to try to change things for the better. Social justice activists have made similar arguments that anger can be justified and helpful in some cases. For Ekman this positive type of anger is strongly connected to compassionate empathy.
Because compassion includes ‘concern for the suffering of others’ and an appeal for ‘action’, it is difficult to discuss it without reference to questions of values and ethics. The question is not ‘what is’ but ‘what should be’ – and this leads to further questions about the nature of suffering and the best way to relieve or avoid it. It is therefore difficult to reach wide agreement on what compassion should entail beyond a very abstract level. Expressed positively, because the implications of compassion go beyond the questions that scientific research can answer, there is space for creative and individual human responses – and in looking for such responses there is also a rich variety of resources to draw inspiration from, including different philosophical and religious positions as well as music and literature.
Learn more about different types of compassion here.
Does compassion lead to the best possible action?
As we have seen, there are different ways in which compassion can be framed. However, there is also a line of argument that compassion on its own, in all these definitions, is not sufficient to inspire positive action or at least not the best possible action.
One such argument is put forth by Paul Bloom in his 2016 book Against Empathy where he makes the point that compassion needs to be complemented by reason or rationality.
- Reason is the human capacity to critically consider one’s actions and their effects.
If we define the value of an action at least in part by the consequences it brings, assessing different courses of actions and their potential outcomes is critical. This is because a good intention does not necessarily lead to good outcomes. For example, this can be because we do not fully understand the other person’s needs (such as giving unwanted presents) or because our actions have unintended negative consequences (such as when foreign aid impairs a community’s long-term ability to develop its own resources).
Assuming an action is motivated by a genuine concern for the suffering of a group of people (compassion in its broadest sense) and an understanding of that groups’ needs (which can be supported by perspective taking, one aspect of cognitive empathy), the action’s outcome is unlikely to be bad for that person in that moment. In that sense, compassion is likely to lead to a good action.
The point made by Bloom, however, is that there could be a better action. In a complex world, our actions have all sorts of consequences and there is rarely only one possible course of action that benefits other people. Using reason to make intelligent choices or ‘giving intelligently’ can therefore lead to better results than just ‘giving’.
The most prominent example of this position is Peter Singer and his call for effective altruism: to do the most good that you can. Altruism may be good, the argument goes, but it is all the more powerful if it is combined with a careful cost-benefit analysis of potential courses of action.
Is compassion necessary for positive action?
Not necessarily. Actions can be based on all kinds of moral sources. Compassion is just one of them. Examples of other sources of moral guidance are beliefs, rules (or laws) and notions of rights. By following rules that are designed to benefit everyone in the long-term, one can potentially contribute to the welfare of others, even without having compassion for the particular beneficent of that action.
However, if rules are considered to be made by human beings rather than by a benevolent God, one needs to allow for the possibility that they are neither fail-proof nor free from bias. In this respect, a healthy combination of compassion and reason can supplement rules when they have blind spots or override them in cases where they do not work as intended.
References (in order of recommendation for further exploration about the topics covered)
- Bloom, Paul (2016) Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Ecco / HarperCollins. *See my own review here.
- Ekman, Paul (2014) Moving Toward Global Compassion. Paul Ekman Group.
- Monroe, Kristen Renwick (2010) ‚The Roots of Moral Courage‘, available online at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/roots_of_moral_courage/
- Goleman, Daniel (2008) ‚Hot to Help. When can empathy move us to action?‘ [a discussion of Paul Ekman’s notion of compassionate empathy], available online at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hot_to_help
- André, Christophe (2006) Imparfaits, libres et heureux. Pratique de l’estime de soi. O. Jacob. *I have only read the Japanese translation by Takano Yu (2008): 「自己評価メソッドー自分とうまくつきあうための心理学」 紀伊國屋書店